Standing Committee B

[David Taylorin the Chair]

David Taylor: I remind the Committee that there is a money resolution in connection with the Bill and copies are available in the room. I also remind hon. Members that adequate notice should be given of amendments. As a general rule, my co-Chairman and I do not intend to called starred amendments. In addition, I ask hon. Members please to ensure that mobile phones, pagers and so on are turned off or on silent mode during Committee sittings. Finally, I am content on this occasion for hon. Members to remove their jackets if they so wish. We come now to the programme motion, on which debate may continue for up to half an hour.

David Hanson: I beg to move,
That the order in which proceedings in Standing Committee on the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill are to be taken shall be Clauses 8 and 9, new Clauses relating to Part 2, new Schedules relating to Part 2, Clauses 13 to 17, Schedule 1, Clause 18, new Clauses relating to Part 4, new Schedules relating to Part 4, Clauses 23 to 27, Schedule 3, Clauses 28 to 31, Schedules 4 and 5, Clauses 32 to 34, remaining proceedings on the Bill.
I welcome you, Mr. Taylor, and your co-Chairman, Mr. Atkinson, to the Committee. I have served under you on several occasions and I know that you will discharge your duty fairly and efficiently.
The debate in the Programming Sub-Committee took less than 30 seconds, so I assume that there is no opposition from the Official Opposition or others to the programme motion and I hope that the Committee will support it. It gives us scope for two days of consideration, although I hope that we can finish earlier.

Laurence Robertson: I join the Minister in welcoming you to the Committee, Mr. Taylor. I have also had the pleasure of serving under you and I am sure that this, too, will be a pleasurable experience.
The Minister is right in assuming that we have no objection to the programme motion, but I should make just one point, which I have raised before in Committee and in the House. We have rather a lot of Northern Ireland business to consider at the moment. We were due to sit today and on Thursday, but the introduction of another Bill means that we will now not sit on Thursday. In addition, we had a rather ridiculous situation on Tuesday or Wednesday last week, when an important statement was made in the Chamber at the same time as an important statutory instrument Committee was beginning—the two items of business overlapped, even though both were extremely important.
I therefore ask the Government to be a little sympathetic to Opposition parties, which do not have as many Front Benchers and officials as the Government. I also ask them to think about their timetabled legislation. The Bill deals with important issues, such as devolving policing and justice matters to the Assembly. The other Bill, which will be introduced tomorrow, deals with the important issue of setting up the Assembly. Such issues are not trivial, and I ask the Government to give a little more thought to the timetabling of Northern Ireland business. Having said that, I have no objection to the programme motion.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 8

Tenure

Laurence Robertson: I beg to move amendment No. 11, in clause 8, page 7, line 28, after ‘by', insert
‘Her Majesty The Queen on the recommendation of'.

David Taylor: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 12, in clause 8, page 7, line 35, leave out ‘Secretary of State' and insert ‘Her Majesty'.
No. 13, in clause 8, page 7, line 37, leave out ‘dismiss' and insert
‘recommend to Her Majesty the dismissal of'.

Laurence Robertson: I have just agreed to the programme motion, but I do not intend to fill both sittings, although if we need to do so, we shall. I do not want to drag debates out, so I shall speak briefly to the amendment, which is intended to probe the Minister.
I have mentioned in the Chamber the fact that the police ombudsman, for example, is appointed by Her Majesty the Queen, no doubt on the recommendation of the Secretary of State. However, the chief electoral officer is to be appointed by the Secretary of State. We had a long debate on that issue on the Floor of the House during discussion of a separate amendment.
I was concerned that there could be a rather incestuous relationship between the Secretary of State and the chief electoral officer. It particularly concerned me that, in circumstances that were not clearly defined—they were defined by the words “public interest”—the Secretary of State would have the power to cancel a canvass of the electorate if he felt that appropriate.
We could not satisfactorily tease from the Minister the circumstances in which it might be in the public interest to cancel such a canvass. I have tabled the amendment to explore the situation again and ask the Minister why it is appropriate for the Secretary of State to make the appointment. That seems inconsistent with other, similar appointments.

David Hanson: I hope that I can help the hon. Gentleman, and I fully understand why he tabled his amendment. I refer him to the statutory provision that provides for the appointment of the chief electoral officer—the Electoral Law Act (Northern Ireland) 1962, in which no mention is made of Her Majesty the Queen. However, the post is, is understood to be and is defined as a Crown appointment. The wording of the clause will preserve the current position; in essence, the chief electoral officer will still be a Crown appointment.
There is no need for the amendment. In fact, inserting a reference to the Queen would put the chief electoral officer, for the first time, on the same statutory footing as, for example, senior clergy in the Church of England. The amendment is unnecessary because the post will be a Crown appointment. Given that assurance, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment.

Laurence Robertson: I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. The concerns that we raised in Committee in the House remain—we were not satisfied with the explanation on that occasion—but I accept that we were discussing a different amendment on a different day. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lady Hermon: I beg to move amendment No. 20, in clause 8, page 7, line 30, at end insert—
‘(1A) A person must not be appointed as Chief Electoral Officer for less than two years at a time.'.

David Taylor: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 5, in clause 8, page 7, line 31, leave out subsection (2).
No. 6, in clause 8, page 7, line 33, leave out subsection (3).
No. 7, in clause 8, page 8, line 5, leave out subsection (6).
No. 23, in clause 8, page 8, line 10, leave out ‘plus' and insert ‘less'.
No. 8, in clause 8, page 8, line 11, leave out subsection (7).

Lady Hermon: I, too, am delighted to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Taylor—in this and perhaps a second sitting.
We are still discussing clause 8, which concerns the tenure of the chief electoral officer. Amendments Nos. 20 and 23 stand in my name and I shall say a little about each. However, I would like to remind the Committee of the words of the Minister in his winding-up speech on Second Reading. Speaking about the chief electoral officer and his independence, the Minister said:
“The proposal will bring the chief electoral officer into line with other modern approaches and modern terms and conditions of appointment.”—[Official Report, 13 March 2006; Vol. 443, c. 1244.]
I would be thrilled and delighted to hear from the Minister which other modern approaches and modern terms and conditions of appointment are mirrored by those of the chief electoral officer. I say that specifically because, under clause 8(3), the period for which a person holds office as chief electoral officer must not exceed 10 years. That seems clear. There is no discretion.
This is where my amendment No. 23 is particularly important. It applies to subsection (6), which drives a coach and horses through the provision that the fixed-term appointment must not exceed 10 years. It sets out an exception to that golden rule and states:
“This section applies in relation to the person who at commencement holds the office of Chief Electoral Officer as if...the total period which under subsection (3) must not be exceeded were 10 years plus the period of his appointment before commencement.”
If the Minister wishes to have a fixed term and wishes to have, as he said on Second Reading, the chief electoral officer brought into line with other modern approaches, let us have a fixed term of 10 years and let us replace the word “plus” with “less”. Let us have 10 years. Let us have a fixed-term appointment. That is the purpose of amendment No. 23.
I turn now to amendment No. 20, which is the lead amendment in the group. Curiously, subsection (2) states:
“A person must not be appointed as Chief Electoral Officer for more than 5 years at a time.”
That seems clear. However, it means that the person who is appointed as chief electoral officer could be appointed for a week, a month or an hour. I gently suggest to the Minister that one of the modern examples to which he referred on Second Reading could have been a reflection of the appointment of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland. According to the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998, an appointment as ombudsman may be full-time or part-time, but it
“shall be for a period of 7 years.”
That was the modern approach to take to the appointment of the chief electoral officer.
Under the Bill, the chief electoral officer has no security of tenure and cannot be appointed for more than five years. Amendment No. 20 would secure a basic minimum tenure of two years for the chief electoral officer. That is a significant and responsible position, particularly in Northern Ireland where we have a history of electoral fraud. Can the Minister explain why this phraseology has been used? Is it just poor drafting? Will he accept the amendments, even at this late stage?

David Hanson: I understand the spirit in which the hon. Lady tabled the amendments. There is nothing unusual in the way that the clause is drafted. It uses similar terms and conditions to those used in other legislation, for example, provisions relating to the commissioners on the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and the police ombudsman. The same conditions and the same method of appointment that apply under this clause apply to those posts. All those office holders, like the office holder we are discussing, are, of course, independent of the Government. Therefore, they are useful role models in respect of the appointment of the chief electoral officer. The time limit on their terms does not in any way diminish their independence.
As the hon. Lady identified, under clause 8, the chief electoral officer can be appointed for a term of up to 5 years, and nobody can hold the post for more than 10 years. I have also made something clear about the incumbent at the time the Bill is enacted. Denis Stanley has recently retired as chief electoral officer and we are in the process of appointing a new one. I am not yet clear, as you will not be either, Mr. Taylor, when or if the Bill will receive Royal Assent. Therefore, we have said that the time scale for the appointment of the chief electoral officer will commence when Royal Assent is given to the Bill and when it is enacted. An individual might be appointed in the next few months and they will have up to 10 years, plus the period up until the Bill receives Royal Assent. I hope that that clarifies matters.
I understand the reasons why the hon. Lady wishes to specify a minimum period. I simply say to her that the normal practice is that individuals will be appointed for up to five years and that will, in normal practice, mean five years; there are few circumstances in which I can foresee the Secretary of State appointing someone for less time than that.

Lady Hermon: Does the Minister agree that the present wording indicates that the person who is appointed chief electoral officer, and who will take up the work that Denis Stanley has been doing so courageously and well for such a long period, can be appointed for just a week or just a month? The Minister referred to “normal practice”. Why will he not simply change the wording to make it clear that the initial appointment will be for a term of not less than five years?

David Hanson: I can confirm to the hon. Lady that the Bill, as drafted, will ensure that a person can be appointed for a term of up to five years. I am happy, outside the Committee, to reflect on the points that she has made. There might be merit in specifying a minimum term, but the normal practice for other posts is the same as is in this provision. I hope that she can accept that. I shall happily examine whether it is in the interests of the chief electoral officer and the Government to consider her proposals, because there might be merit in them. I shall not prejudge the case. The normal practice is proposed in the Bill. Given those comments, I hope that she will withdraw her amendment.

Lady Hermon: I am most grateful to the Minister. I am glad that I intervened, because following my intervention he gave a commitment, honourably and rightly, as is his habit, to listen to representations, particularly those from Members from Northern Ireland, who have particular concerns having grown up there, borne the brunt, and known what electoral fraud means and how votes are stolen. Stealing votes is a serious criminal offence. The office of the chief electoral officer is a particularly important one in Northern Ireland.
I am reflecting on earlier clauses, which I shall not comment on in detail. The Minister will know from a debate on the Floor of the House last week, that the Bill, in its earlier clauses, also abolishes the annual canvass and has instituted a canvass that might take place at 10-yearly intervals. That means that it is important that whoever is appointed as Denis Stanley’s successor has independence. Such independence is brought about by a secure tenure in post of at least five years and up to 10 years, and not by their having a short minimum period. If fraud is creeping back into the system, and if the antennae of those in the electoral office tell them that there is mischief, such as people being registered to vote who are not entitled to do so, it is important that the chief electoral officer has been in post for a considerable period of time.
Reflecting on the change to the annual canvass and the importance of the point that the chief electoral officer should be independent and have security of tenure, I look forward to subsequent discussions with the Minister on this point after the Committee. However, given his assurances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lady Hermon: I beg to move amendment No. 19, in page 7, line 41, leave out ‘an' and insert ‘a criminal'.

David Taylor: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 9, in page 8, line 4, at end insert—
‘(5A) The Secretary of State must set out in writing the reasons for dismissing the Chief Electoral Officer in this section and place a copy before each House of Parliament.'.
No. 21, in page 8, line 4, at end insert—
‘(5A) The Secretary of State must dismiss the Chief Electoral Officer if satisfied that he has been convicted of a criminal offence punishable by a term of imprisonment.'.
No. 22, in page 8, line 4, at end insert—
‘(5B) The Secretary of State must dismiss the Chief Electoral Officer if satisfied that he has been convicted of a criminal offence and been sentenced to a term of imprisonment whether suspended or not.'.

Lady Hermon: Amendments Nos. 19, 21 and 22 relate to the chief electoral officer him or herself, who will be appointed shortly. Again, it is curious drafting that has caught my attention and led to my tabling of the amendments. Clause 8(5)(b) is critical in relation to the amendment. It contains a discretion, not a duty that
“The Secretary of State may dismiss the Chief Electoral Officer if satisfied that—...
b) he”—
or presumably she—
“has been convicted of an offence”.
What jumped off the page was the omission of the word “criminal”. I am not a member of a golf club, but without anything to limit it, the word “offence” includes offences referred to as disciplinary offences, which are breaches of the rules of a golf club—or those of other organisations. I am sure that it is not intended that the Secretary of State may dismiss the chief electoral officer for a minor infringement of golf club rules.
Amendment No. 19 would ensure that the word “criminal” is included in the subsection to make it clear that the current drafting is far too wide and would ensure that the wording is narrowed to make it clear that only a criminal offence would be relevant. That would bring the wording into line with the appointment of members to the Policing Board. I notice that the Minister has his colleague who is responsible for policing and security with him, the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Woodward). Given the recent controversy about appointments to the Policing Board, I am sure that both Ministers from the Northern Ireland Office will know that the Secretary of State may, under the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000, dismiss and remove an independent or a political appointment to the Policing Board, if that person has been convicted of a criminal offence in Northern Ireland after their appointment.
Regarding amendments Nos. 21 and 22, I repeat that the office of the chief electoral officer is important because its holder carries out a job that gives confidence to the public in Northern Ireland. The person in question must be satisfactorily qualified and remain qualified to command the respect of the community in Northern Ireland, whatever community it might be. Amendment No. 21 would insert a requirement for the Secretary of State to dismiss the chief electoral officer if satisfied that he has been convicted of a criminal offence punishable by a term of imprisonment.
Amendment No. 22 would ensure that the Secretary of State must dismiss— [Interruption.] This is for the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), who, I am sure, will wish to comment on this amendment. Amendment No. 22 would ensure that the Secretary of State must dismiss the chief electoral officer if satisfied that he has been convicted of a criminal offence and sentenced to a term of imprisonment, whether suspended or not. It seems incredible to me that even if the chief electoral officer has been found guilty of a heinous crime that carries with it a term of imprisonment, there is no duty under the Bill to require the chief electoral officer to stand down from his post. We are not talking about a member of staff in the electoral office, but the chief electoral officer himself or herself.
It is incumbent upon the Minister to accept the amendments so that there will be no discretion for the Secretary of State and so that the removal of the chief electoral officer will be compulsory when the criminal conviction carries a sentence of imprisonment. I am not aiming at minor infringements of the criminal law, but at the compulsory removal of a chief electoral officer who has been found guilty of a criminal offence that is punishable by a term of imprisonment. That is the simple import of the amendments, which are all sensible and straightforward. The Minister would do well to accept them.

Laurence Robertson: I shall speak to amendment No. 9, which may sound a little heavy-handed and bureaucratic. However, I refer the Committee back to our debate on the Floor of the House about the control that the Secretary of State might have over the chief electoral officer and the concern that was expressed at the time. I refer to the opportunity for the Secretary of State to cancel a canvass of the electorate that might be recommended by the chief electoral officer, and the fact that his reasons for cancelling such a canvass are apparently covered by the words “in the public interest”. We did not receive a satisfactory explanation of that phrase.
The chief electoral officer can be dismissed for the reasons set out in the Bill. According to clause 8(5)(d), those include if
“he is unable or unfit to carry out his functions.”
That could be considered slightly vague. In the context of Northern Ireland, in particular, it is important to have a chief electoral officer with some degree of autonomy and independence. I am concerned that that will not be the case under the arrangements that have been made.
I will not try the patience of the Committee by going over the ground that we covered on the Floor of the House, as hon. Members will be familiar with what was said. However, if relations become strained between the Secretary of State and the chief electoral officer, it should be made public why the Secretary of State feels the need to dismiss the chief electoral officer. It seems a bit bureaucratic to lay the report before the Houses of Parliament, but I do not think that it would take up a great deal of the Secretary of State’s time. There are not many changes taking place with regard to drawing up the list of electors, but transparency and, more importantly, confidence in the process in Northern Ireland are essential. That is my motivation in introducing amendment No. 9.

Alasdair McDonnell: I want to add my tuppence-worth to the comments made by my learned colleague, the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon). The point is that the chief electoral officer needs to be seen to be independent and to be as autonomous as possible. Others have expressed significant concerns, which are genuine. It is possible—I hasten to add not under the present Government, as no such thing would ever happen with the present team of Ministers—that a future Government could try to exercise control over the chief electoral officer.
The SDLP shares those concerns and thinks that it would be right to build in that sensible safeguard. All it will do is require the Secretary of State to set out his reasons for dismissal of a chief electoral officer in a report to Parliament. We think that is entirely appropriate. We are therefore pleased to have the opportunity to add our names to the amendment and urge the Ministers to take our genuine concern into consideration.

David Hanson: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. Hopefully, I can reassure him that the chief electoral officer is and will be independent of the Government. The safeguards in the Bill allow that position to be independent. It is reflected throughout the Bill and in the way in which the current Government operated with the previous chief electoral officer, Denis Stanley.
I understand the points that the hon. Member for North Down made. I do not believe that the word “criminal” is necessary. It is used in other legislation—and there are different drafting styles in legislation—but the meaning of this Bill is exactly the same as the meaning of other Acts with regard to criminal convictions. It is not necessary to specify that the offence in clause 8(5)(b) should be criminal.

Lady Hermon: Will the Minister just name one piece of recent Northern Ireland legislation where the word “criminal” has been omitted from in front of the word “offence”—just one?

David Hanson: I am the fount of much knowledge and I have taken through a number of Northern Ireland Bills but, off the top of my head, I cannot answer that particular question.
However, clause 8(5)(b) does refer to criminal offences, as the clause is clear that the chief electoral officer can be dismissed only if a conviction has taken place, and convictions are available only in the criminal courts. Therefore, although I accept that the word “criminal” is not included in the clause, in essence, a conviction means a conviction in a criminal court, and that means exactly the same as what the hon. Lady’s amendment is trying to achieve.
I could add the word “criminal” into the legislation. There is not a problem with that, but the Bill, as drafted by myself and my officials, will achieve the same purpose. If the hon. Lady so wants, I am happy to reflect on whether the word “criminal” should be included, but the effect will be the same.
Mr. Robertsonrose—

David Hanson: Before I give way to the hon. Gentleman, it is important to clarify matters, because I want to refer to amendments Nos.21 and 22 that the hon. Lady has tabled. I differ from her because under her amendments, the chief electoral officer would be dismissed if he or she were convicted of a criminal offence and sentenced to a term of imprisonment, whether suspended or not, at any time during his or her career. I want to ensure that a criminal offence would mean a dismissal if it occurred during the tenure of the chief electoral officer, not historically.
I am not suggesting that any future Secretary of State or, indeed, Her Majesty would appoint a chief electoral officer who has criminal convictions. However, the clause is designed specifically to ensure that if a criminal conviction occurs during the tenure of the office, the Secretary of the State can dismiss the individual. As we discussed last week in the Chamber, previous convictions are matters for consideration but are not a bar to holding the particular office.
I understand the point made by the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson). There may be a need for a statement on the reasons why the dismissal of the chief electoral officer has occurred. Clause 8(5)(a),(b),(c) and (d) show clearly the circumstances in which a chief electoral officer may be dismissed by the Secretary of State. It would be an additional bureaucratic burden for the Secretary of State to undertake the hon. Gentleman’s proposal. He used those words when speaking to the amendment. I agree with him that it would be an additional bureaucratic burden.
Should the chief electoral officer have need to contest why the Secretary of State dismissed him or her, he or she has recourse in law, as does any individual dismissed from a post. They could also make their complaints public if they so wish. So if the Secretary of State had acted in an underhand way, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, the chief electoral officer could go public with the reasons why he or she was dissatisfied with that decision. To add a legal requirement to produce a report for Parliament would be a step too far. I hope that the safeguards built into the clause will satisfy the hon. Gentleman.
With that, I ask hon. Members not to press their amendments. I hope that I have given a satisfactory explanation of the way in which we approached the legislation and that I have satisfied hon. Members on the points raised.

Lady Hermon: I am terribly sorry to disappoint the Minister but I did not find his response satisfactory in the least. He kindly said that he “could”—I am quoting him directly—add the word “criminal”. That is precisely what I am asking him to do under amendment No. 19. I understand from the Minister’s hesitation that he accepts that “criminal” should have been included.

David Hanson: There is no hesitation on my part; I simply say to the hon. Lady that the clause does what she wishes it to do. If a conviction occurred, it would occur in a criminal court, and the individual would be dismissed on that basis. That is an accepted definition. There are differences in drafting styles between different Bills, but that is an accepted definition, and I hope that it will satisfy the hon. Lady that there is no need for her amendment, which would add an extra word to the Bill but not change its meaning.

Lady Hermon: I am most grateful to the Minister. I can assist him with some references to recent Northern Ireland legislation on that very matter. He might like to know that the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998 says:
“The Secretary of State may call upon the Ombudsman”—
that is the police ombudsman—
“to retire...if satisfied that the Ombudsman has...been convicted of a criminal offence”.
That is written into the Act. Let me refer the Minister also to the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000, a more recent piece of legislation. He may like to know that schedule 1, which relates to the Policing Board, says that:
“The Secretary of State may remove a person from office as an independent or political member of the Board if satisfied that...he has been convicted of a criminal offence in Northern Ireland”.
The word “criminal” appears in that Act. Those are recent pieces of legislation in Northern Ireland in which the word “criminal” is included. That is what I am asking about.

David Hanson: I have no wish to cause a row where a row need not exist. Essentially, the hon. Lady will be aware that the legislation that we support has exactly the same meaning as her amendment. I am happy to reflect on the matter with my officials and to write to the hon. Lady. I would rather do that because as the hon. Lady will understand, in Committee, the wording of legislation is carefully thought-out by parliamentary draftsmen to have specific meanings. I believe that the meaning of the legislation is exactly the same as it would be if we added the word “criminal”. I would rather reflect on the matter than accept the amendment for the simple reason that there may be different circumstances.

David Taylor: Order. I call Lady Hermon.

Lady Hermon: I am grateful to the Minister for assuring me that, once again, he will reflect upon the inclusion of the word “criminal” in front of the word “offence” in clause 8(5). It just seems a simple, obvious request for clarification in the Bill to make it consistent with earlier pieces of Northern Ireland legislation. The Bill is poorly drafted; that is the problem. I would like the word “criminal” included.
The more important issue—and here I will have an argument with the Minister—is his refusal to accept the amendments that make reference to the chief electoral officer, including amendment No. 21, which says:
“The Secretary of State must dismiss the Chief Electoral Officer if satisfied that he has been convicted of a criminal offence punishable by a term of imprisonment.”
Alternatively, amendment No. 22 says:
“The Secretary of State must dismiss the Chief Electoral Officer if satisfied that he has been convicted of a criminal offence and been sentenced to a term of imprisonment whether suspended or not.”
The Minister took issue with the amendments on the grounds that they could relate to a previous conviction held by the chief electoral officer. I am sure that it is not necessary to draw the Minister’s attention to this point, but clause 8(5)(c) gives the Secretary of State the power to dismiss the chief electoral officer if he is satisfied that
“a bankruptcy order has been made against him, or his estate has been sequestrated, or he has made a composition or arrangement with, or granted a trust deed for, his creditors”.
Does it say that that must have happened during the term of his office as chief electoral officer? No, it does not. The Bill does not refer to a criminal conviction. However, it does refer to a bankruptcy order, sequestration or a composition arrangement with creditors.
I humbly—though in ill temper—suggest to the Minister that it is much more serious for a chief electoral officer to have been found guilty of a criminal offence punishable by imprisonment. That should be in the Bill, and the Minister’s excuse for refusing to include it is woeful, taken in the context of the Bill’s provisions for dismissal on grounds of bankruptcy, whether past or current. The Bill does not set a time scale. I am sorry to detain the Committee but I refuse to withdraw the amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 15.

Question accordingly negatived.

David Taylor: Is it the hon. Lady’s intention to press amendments Nos. 21 and 22 to a Division?

Lady Hermon: I would be persuaded, if the Minister would care to intervene to indicate that he is prepared to reflect on making the Bill more—

David Taylor: Order. The debate is concluded. The decision to press the amendments to a Division is in the hon. Lady’s hands.

Lady Hermon: Yes. I do want to.

Amendment proposed: No. 21, in clause 8, page 8, line 4, at end insert—
‘(5A) The Secretary of State must dismiss the Chief Electoral Officer if satisfied that he has been convicted of a criminal offence punishable by a term of imprisonment.'.—[Lady Hermon.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 15.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 13

Introduction

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Laurence Robertson: I am grateful to you, Mr. Taylor, for the opportunity to discuss this clause briefly. Under the legislation, donations to political parties in Northern Ireland from the Republic of Ireland will still be permitted. In no way do I want to make a party political point, but the concern is that donations from the Republic benefit certain political parties to the exclusion of others. The objective of much of our debate, and legislation that has been introduced through statutory instruments and primary legislation, is to normalise the situation between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I welcome the attempts to normalise and, where possible, make comparable the situation. Some of this legislation works towards that. One aspect that does not is the provision for donations to political parties in Northern Ireland to come from donors in the south.
There is a further complication. It is possible for people who live abroad—in America, for example—to make donations to political parties in Northern Ireland not necessarily directly, but through citizens of the Republic. That is a concern. I would have liked to limit the amount of time for which the provision exists, stating that from, let us say, 2010, such donations would no longer be acceptable.
The Government’s explanation for allowing donations from the south to be made to the north is that the two countries are inextricably linked, and one party at least is registered in both countries, so it is acceptable. However, if we are moving towards normalisation and equalisation, I do not think that it is acceptable for that situation to continue. Therefore, I am concerned that the Government seem to be prepared to let it carry on indefinitely, whereas I would have sought to end it—not necessarily today or tomorrow, but certainly by putting a three or four-year limit on the arrangement. I look forward to hearing other hon. Members comments, because I know that the issue is of concern to a number of parties in Northern Ireland, and to finding out what the Minister has to say about the situation.

Alasdair McDonnell: I very much welcome the fact that, in many ways, this part of the Bill represents a sensible way forward. Some would argue that the same rules on disclosure should apply to Northern Ireland as to Britain. There are good reasons why that is not the case for now. The simple reason is that Northern Ireland is not the same as Britain at present. Political life, in particular, is very different. Sectarianism, intimidation, extortion and violence all have a role to play in that difference, and they played a significant role in creating it. That is why the Committee on Standards in Public Life originally asked the Government to consider a short-term and reviewable exemption from the recording requirements in respect of donations to political parties in Northern Ireland.
Matters have improved in Northern Ireland, and I am grateful for that, but violence, sectarianism, intimidation and extortion still remain fairly serious problems. For example, during the Whiterock riots of last year, over a period of three days 146 blast bombs were thrown, 115 shots were fired, 116 vehicles were hijacked and 81 policemen and women were injured. Sectarianism remains a problem. Some 700 incidents took place in a few months last year, amounting to about five a day. Paramilitary extortion remains a big problem. In spite of that, two thirds of cases could not be pursued because the complainant did not want the police to take action. In many cases, the complainant will not approach the police at all. All that affects people’s willingness openly to support or donate to political parties, and to contribute the finance necessary to support genuine democracy and political life. Many business men would like to operate on a cross-community basis and do not particularly want to be strongly identified with one particular party.

Lady Hermon: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that while we are trying to instil confidence in the political system, the secrecy that surrounds donations and loans to political parties undermines it? Extortion is a criminal offence, and it is about time that people reported it and co-operated with the police. Does he not agree that openness is the way to build confidence in our political system at home?

Alasdair McDonnell: I totally agree with the hon. Lady—in a normal society. The difficulty is that we still have a somewhat abnormal society. While others might not be, I am fully conscious that many people who would want to support me, or have done so, or have at times supported my party, are subject to threats and intimidation from sources of a paramilitary nature. I do not wish to subject people to that.
My political party needs money. It is an open and honest party that survives on the votes of its supporters and on small donations from a series of supporters. There is nothing underhand or dishonest about where we obtain our funds. My point is that, in the short term, to declare our sources openly is to put those responsible at high risk. I make that point genuinely and sincerely, and if people wish to disagree I regret that. However, I am not making it for any underhand reason. People are threatened and intimidated, and I emphasise that this has happened to my party’s donors. For obvious reasons, I do not wish to go into detail and expose them further.
It would have been reasonable to continue to exempt Northern Ireland political parties from reporting requirements beyond 31 October 2007. However, we understand that Parliament wants greater transparency. For that reason, we accept that donations above £5,000 should be reported to the Electoral Commission, although we are adamant that they should not be made public.
However, we have concerns even at this stage, as we know that from time to time paramilitaries have tried to infiltrate public bodies. For example, in October 2004, a member of the Real IRA, one of the dissident groups, was accessing personal information from the database of the Royal Victoria hospital. That is a concern. From that perspective, we would be keen to have information lodged in London, where it might be safer, rather than in an office in Belfast.
In the light of the intervention by the hon. Member for North Down, I emphasise that the SDLP is not in any way in favour of unregulated political donations. We accept the ban on foreign donations, as long as Irish citizens and Irish companies can donate. Further, and critically, we advocate the simplest and most effective of all regulation, a ban to ban all—

David Taylor: Order. The debate is on clause 13 stand part. I am allowing the hon. Member to make comments on other clauses in part 4 on the understanding that they are not repeated when those clauses arise, but I request that he conclude his remarks.

Alasdair McDonnell: I am happy to leave my comments at that, Mr. Taylor.

Lembit Öpik: The proposed amendment aims to hold the Government to their word. They have said that they want the final disapplication period to end on 31 October 2010 and have planned for that in clause 17. However, they are notorious for introducing plan Bs. We are concerned about that, and are therefore sympathetic to the amendment.

David Taylor: Order. I confirm again that we are dealing with clause 13 stand part. We have not reached the Government amendment on clause 15, to which I believe the hon. Member may be referring.

Lembit Öpik: In which case, I shall hold off. As you rightly say, Mr. Taylor, my points would be better made on clause 15, so I shall wait until then.

Ben Wallace: I want briefly to comment on clause 13. I am conscious of your comments, Mr. Taylor, about other clauses. I could speak to clause 18, but as there are no amendments down for that clause, perhaps it would be best to speak in this stand part debate.
The amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury would put a time limit on the power of clause 18; that is, when it would cease to have effect. Clause 18 raises some concerns, in that no sooner have we passed the legislation than much of it can be changed by order—within two months, in fact—by the Secretary of State. As the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) said, the Government are notorious for suddenly coming up with a plan B. Therefore, one sometimes wonders what this is all for if within two months it can be changed by statutory instrument.
In speaking to the amendment and clause 13 itself, I ask whether it is right that the clause is put in to allow clause 18 to come into effect and remove all the work that might be done in this Committee and perhaps in another place. I do not like having so many clauses that allow legislation to be changed so soon after it has gone through the House. In principle, that is wrong. Therefore, clause 13 and clause 18, to which it leads, should be opposed.

David Taylor: Order. I should point out that amendment No. 10 has not been moved.

Sammy Wilson: Briefly, I want to echo the points made by the hon. Member for North Down. The more transparency there is about political donations, the better, especially in the current climate, where there is great suspicion over how some parties have raised money and why people have donated to them. It is important for us all that there is a degree of transparency.
I do not accept the argument of the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Dr. McDonnell). He said that Northern Ireland is different and that there is intimidation, extortion, violence, blast bombs and shots—he went through a whole catalogue of things. It is strange that someone who has lectured us about the fact that everyone has changed so much should use that convenient argument as an excuse for secrecy over political donations.

Alasdair McDonnell: All I want to do is inquire whether the hon. Gentleman is denying the facts that I have placed before the Committee. The facts are there as facts and they cannot be denied.

Sammy Wilson: I am not denying those facts, but they are no excuse for secrecy over party political donations. Some business men make their party political affiliations well known, but none has faced intimidation or been put under pressure because people knew the parties to which they donated or were affiliated. It is important that there is a degree of transparency.
The other issue is how donations to political parties can be channelled from the Irish Republic. Given that such donations are likely to benefit one party alone—Sinn Fein—I would have thought that the hon. Member for Belfast, South was keen to close that conduit of funds. As has been said, many of Sinn Fein’s friends from across the world can channel funds through sympathisers in the Irish Republic and so add to Sinn Fein’s coffers. When one looks at the army—I use the word advisedly—that Sinn Fein can put out during elections, one sees that some of its members are paid daily to canvass areas and sometimes re-canvass them four or five times.
Sinn Fein councillors on Belfast city council say that they are allocated 30 people to canvass and re-canvass areas to ensure that people are registered and that their message gets across. Such organisation requires huge funding and disadvantages the hon. Gentleman’s party perhaps even more than mine, because he is in direct competition with Sinn Fein.

Laurence Robertson: The hon. Gentleman will not be aware of a conversation that I had with Mr. Seamus Mallon, a former Member of the House. He told me that Sinn Fein had 200 paid activists in his area, and that is from a nationalist politician, not a Unionist politician.

Sammy Wilson: That is exactly the point that I am trying to make and why I find the attitude of the hon. Member for Belfast, South so strange. The less transparency there is about funding arrangements or conduits from the Irish Republic to parties in Northern Ireland—

David Taylor: Order. The hon. Gentleman will have heard me say that this is a clause stand part debate. Clause 13 relates to periods of introduction, but I have allowed people a little latitude to refer to the clauses that it applies to. I ask him to keep his remarks within those boundaries.

Sammy Wilson: Thank you for that leeway, Mr. Taylor. I will draw my remarks to a close. The provisions ought to be removed as soon as possible, so that the laws on political funding in Northern Ireland can be brought into line with those in the rest of the United Kingdom as quickly as possible.

David Hanson: The clause states the commencement dates for the Bill’s provisions relating to donations. I should make it clear to the Committee that the Government wish to see the situation in Northern Ireland regulated as quickly as possible to the same level as in the rest of the United Kingdom. We should move to a situation of openness and transparency in political party funding and donations.
Passing the Bill requires the rules on permissible donors and the declaration of accepted donations to the Electoral Commission to be brought into line with rules for the rest of the United Kingdom at the earliest opportunity. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South has pointed out several areas of potential intimidation, and we are acutely aware that although we are working toward and wish to see the normalisation of the political process in Northern Ireland, we are not quite there yet.
I recognise that there are still potential issues of intimidation and threats, and that individuals in Northern Ireland still cannot openly declare their funding support for any political party. Due to a range of potential threats, they cannot publish fully their financial support in the name of transparency. Clause 13 will establish a transitional period from November 2007 to October 2010, at the end of which I hope that Northern Ireland will move to full transparency. As Committee members will be aware, clause 13 and later clauses create the potential for donation declarations to the Electoral Commission to be held but not published until such time as the Secretary of State and I feel it appropriate to recommend otherwise.

Lembit Öpik: But can the Minister not see the irony in that? All that paramilitary organisations must do to ensure that the Government never implement a change is carry on intimidating people who donate to other parties.

David Hanson: The hon. Gentleman makes a point that could undoubtedly be accepted by the Committee. However, it is my hope that the Committee, the Government and all political parties in Northern Ireland will accept that during the next three to four years, political party and election funding in Northern Ireland could move from having no regulation—it is entirely different from the rest of the United Kingdom in that it has no regulation of foreign donations—to having regulation on both foreign donations and political party funding donations, as in the rest of the United Kingdom. Because of Northern Ireland’s special circumstances, we will move to full transparency over time. We have determined in the Bill that that period will last until 2010, but it could be shorter if the situation removes itself.
I accept that the situation that the hon. Gentleman has described could indeed happen, but I do not suspect that the Government will be in that position in due course. I believe that Northern Ireland is moving toward being a normal society. Tomorrow, the Independent Monitoring Commission report on the Provisional IRA and progress on decommissioning will be published. I believe that that will show further progress, and that Northern Ireland is moving toward being a more normal society. It is my hope that it will move speedily.

Sammy Wilson: Most policies in Northern Ireland are subject to equality impact assessments. Will the Minister tell us whether an equality impact assessment has been carried out for the legislation on foreign donations and what its outcome was?

David Hanson: I am happy to confirm for the hon. Gentleman that an equality assessment on the draft legislation was undertaken. I do not have the details of the outcome before me, but I would not have introduced the legislation if it was discriminatory in any way. I hope that that satisfies him.

Sammy Wilson: Does the Minister accept that the section on foreign donations will benefit exclusively nationalist and, particularly, republican parties and therefore could not have met the conditions in the equality impact assessment.

David Hanson: No, I do not accept that. I believe that the ban on foreign donations will occur, but, as was referred to by the hon. Gentleman, we have made an exception for the special situation in Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic. We have allowed eligible individuals and bodies that donate to Irish political parties to continue to donate to parties in the north.
Let me put it this way to the hon. Gentleman: I do not know what the 3 million people who live in the Irish Republic will do with their donations—if they wish to make any—and to which political parties in the north they would make them. They might support the Ulster Unionist party or the Democratic Unionist party in the Republic. They might support the Social Democratic and Labour party or, indeed, Sinn Fein. They might support a range of parties.
I cannot speak for the 3 million people in the Republic and their donating habits. The point is that because of the special relationship and the Good Friday agreement, we have maintained that position. We will come on to amendments relating to it in later clauses, and I would prefer to discuss such matters at that stage.
The Irish Government themselves have indicated that they are looking at their own political funding regime. They have no imminent plans to introduce such proposals, but they are looking at the possibility. In the event of such changes arising, and under clause 13 and other powers in the Bill, we could reflect those changes in legislation by order, should we so wish. Certainly, Northern Ireland Office officials are in discussion with Irish Government officials about the joint objective of both Governments, which is to ensure political transparency in donations and that foreign donations from outside of the island of Ireland are banned, as they are in the United Kingdom.

David Taylor: I have allowed the Minister to continue with remarks that more properly relate to clause 15 and others, but I trust that such remarks will not be repeated at length in subsequent debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 14

Part 4 of the 2000 act: the final disapplication period

Lady Hermon: I beg to move amendment No. 24, in clause 14, page 10, line 28, leave out subsection (4).

David Taylor: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 25, in clause 14, page 10, line 34, leave out subsection (5).

Lady Hermon: I should make a declaration at the beginning of my comments on anything to do with donations for political purposes or to political parties in that I am a member of the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission. In that capacity, I take, for obvious reasons, a particular interest in any changes to legislation that apply to political donations, loans and anything akin to them. My views are my own entirely—the issue before us has not been discussed at any length in the Speaker’s Committee.
With that preface to my remarks, I shall speak to amendments Nos. 24 and 25. They relate specifically to clause 14 of this miscellaneous—extremely miscellaneous—provisions Bill and the final disapplication period, which is defined as
“(a) starting with the day on which this section comes into force, and
(b) ending with 31st October 2007.”
The amendments would remove subsections (4) and (5) from the clause. I have difficulty with what is meant by those subsections, although I am sure that the Minister will clarify their meaning when he responds to my proposals.
As drafted, clause 14(4) means that section 54(2)(c) of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 will be effective
“in relation to any donation received during the final disapplication period by—
(a) a Great Britain party, or
(b) a regulated donee who is resident or carries on activities in Great Britain,
as if it referred to a Great Britain party only.”
Speaking personally, that is gobbledegook to the hon. Member for North Down. I would be thrilled and delighted to be able to understand the legislation. Lovely, the Minister is indicating that he wants to intervene. Excellent!

David Hanson: I shall try to assist the hon. Lady. In practical terms, the amendments would allow Great Britain parties, regulated donees and others to receive foreign donations from Northern Ireland parties as a back-door route during the disapplication period, because of the lack of regulation in Northern Ireland during that period. That is the purpose of the provisions.

Lady Hermon: That is most helpful. So in clause 14 we are being asked to approve back-door donations. Did I understand correctly?

David Hanson: No, the purpose is to stop back-door donations.

Lady Hermon: It is just as well that the Minister clarified that. [Interruption.]

David Taylor: Order.

Lady Hermon: The hon. Member for East Antrim is always very agitated and interested in making comments, whether sedentary or not, but I am sure that he will get his opportunity shortly.
The Minister has now indicated that the effect of the clause is to stop back-door donations to Great Britain parties, and I am delighted with that assurance. I was particularly struck that, coincidentally, exactly a week after Second Reading of the Bill on 13 March, the Lord Chancellor made an important statement in the House of Lords about political parties and funding, and about donations and loans in particular. He indicated that
“The Government intend to move amendments to the Electoral Administration Bill, currently before this House, to make it compulsory for political parties to disclose any loans they receive. This issue affects all political parties”
—I emphasise all political parties—and he said
“I have today written to the leaders of all political parties represented at Westminster, and to the Electoral Commission, seeking their views on the elements of a reporting regime, including whether it should be retrospective.” —[Official Report, House of Lords, 30 March 2006; Vol. 680, c. 12.]

David Hanson: I confirm that it is the Government’s intention to introduce regulations to that effect in Northern Ireland.

Lady Hermon: The Minister is obviously in a good mood this morning. He may not have been willing to insert the word “criminal” before the word “offence”, but he is now indicating that, when there is a mind to do something within the Government, they can move very quickly.
On the amendment, may I just test the Minister? The amendment tabled in my name is intended to remove subsection (5) from clause 14, because it is difficult to understand, and any member of the Committee may agree with the hon. Member for North Down on that, not just the Minister. It reads:
“References in Schedule 2A to the 1983 Act to a permissible donor falling within section 54(2) are to be read, in relation to any donation received during the final disapplication period by a candidate at an election in Great Britain, as not including a Northern Ireland party.”
The amendment is a probing one, because I need to be able to understand the legislation that we are being asked to approve in the Bill. As it stands, and even when read alongside the relevant legislation, it is extremely difficult to understand. Will the Minister clarify the scope of the paragraph? My other comments about donations will be taken in connection with clause 15.

David Hanson: I hope that through my interventions on both points, I have assured the hon. Lady. For the avoidance of any doubt, however, subsections (4) and (5) of clause 14 introduce a ban on Northern Ireland political parties in the disapplication period up to 31 October 2010 from making donations to regulated donees or candidates standing for election in Great Britain. In practical terms, her amendments would allow GB parties, regulated donees and candidates to use Northern Ireland parties as a back door through which they could accept foreign donations during the period in which donations were not as yet banned in Northern Ireland. Ours is a simple method of ensuring that during the period when the Act is disapplied to Northern Ireland, there is no back door by which mainland GB parties can receive donations via Northern Ireland. That is the sole purpose of those two subsections.
I hope that that satisfies the hon. Lady. With regard to the statement that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs made about loans, we intend to ensure that, with specific modifications, Northern Ireland is dealt with in exactly the same way as the United Kingdom. I shall introduce appropriate amendments to deal with that matter at an appropriate stage during our considerations.

Lady Hermon: I am most grateful to the Minister. That was a helpful clarification, and I pay tribute to those who drafted the notes to provide that clear explanation of those subsections. The Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs confirmed on 20 March that he had written to the leaders of all political parties represented at Westminster. Although five Sinn Fein Members do not physically take their seats at Westminster, they receive money analogous to Short money. Will the Minister confirm that the Secretary of State has written to the president of Sinn Fein, the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Adams), asking that party for its views about openness in relation to loans?

David Hanson: I am sorry, but I missed the hon. Lady’s point.

Lady Hermon: I shall sum up for the Minister’s benefit. I shall not question what that Secretary of State told the House of Lords; I simply want it clarified. He said:
“I have today written to the leaders of all political parties represented at Westminster”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 March 2006; Vol. 680, c. 12.]
My point was that there are technically five Sinn Fein Members and a political party known as Sinn Fein represented at Westminster, but they do not physically take their seats; so will the Minister intervene on the hon. Member for North Down and assure her that the Secretary of State wrote to the president of Sinn Fein, the hon. Member for Belfast, West, inviting him to disclose the details of loans and donations to Sinn Fein, and say whether those details should be retrospective?

David Hanson: Not only did the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs raise the matter, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland wrote to political parties in Northern Ireland and their leaders to ask them for their views on it. They obviously included the hon. Member for Belfast, West, even though he chooses not to take his seat in this place. Although he chooses not to do so, he and his colleagues are still elected.

Lady Hermon: I am most grateful for that helpful intervention. I happily beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 15

Extension of categories of permissible donors

David Hanson: I beg to move amendment No. 14, in page 11, line 28, leave out ‘has' and insert ‘and “members association” have'.
This is a technical amendment, which corrects a drafting error. It ensures consistency with the 2000 Act. I commend it to the Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

Lady Hermon: I beg to move amendment No. 26, in page 11, line 31, leave out from beginning to end of line 8 on page 12.
I am sure that other members of the Committee will wish to keep fit by rising to speak on clause 15, which deals with the extension of categories of permissible donors.
There has been considerable controversy over recent weeks, which has affected all parties represented in the Committee, but not individuals, about loans and donations to political parties—including to my party. Controversy over the financial position of the Ulster Unionist party is quite different from that which has affected other parties, but I shall not go into detail.
The purpose of the amendment is to find out why clause 15 includes the provision that I wish to have deleted. Subsection (2) of proposed new section 71B states:
“A description or category of body must not be prescribed for the purposes of subsection (1)(b) unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that a body of that description or category would be entitled under Irish law to donate to an Irish political party.”
It seems extraordinary that the Secretary of State should have to be satisfied that a body of a particular description or category is entitled under Irish law to donate to an Irish political party. It is an extraordinary duty to give a Minister in the British Government. I would like the Minister to comment on that.
I was particularly struck by the comments of the Lord Chancellor on 20 March on Government amendments to the Electoral Administration Bill, which is currently being considered by the other place. Those amendments would make it compulsory for political parties to disclose not only donations but loans that they receive. The Minister indicated in an earlier intervention that it is the intention of the Northern Ireland Office to bring Northern Ireland quickly into line with what is happening elsewhere in Great Britain.
In its long title, the Bill states that it allows the Government to make
“miscellaneous amendments to the law relating to Northern Ireland.”
Why, when there was such haste by the Lord Chancellor in relation to other political parties and when the Minister who speaks for the Northern Ireland Office has already indicated that Northern Ireland would be brought into line, cannot we do so post haste? Not only did the Lord Chancellor refer to the Electoral Administration Bill, but the first clause of the Bill, which we debated on the Floor of the House, refers to an order in council making provisions for Northern Ireland
“for purposes corresponding, or similar, to those of section 10 of the Electoral Administration Act 2006”.
For goodness’ sake, if the Minister has indicated that Northern Ireland should be brought into line with the rest of Great Britain in relation to donations and loans, why cannot we do it now? The Bill has not even gone to another place. The Government missed the opportunity to bring forward amendments—[Interruption.]

David Hanson: I do not seek to have a difference of opinion with the hon. Lady where there is not one. The Government intend to bring forward an amendment to ensure that the provision announced by the Lord Chancellor applies to Northern Ireland. We will do that during the parliamentary passage of the legislation. We are not able to do so at the moment, because we need to consider in detail the consequences of that provision for Northern Ireland. The hon. Lady has the assurance that we will do it.

Lady Hermon: I am most grateful to the Minister. I take it that he indicates that the amendment will be made in this Bill—or did he indicate that the amendment would be made to the Electoral Administration Bill?

David Hanson: The amendment will be made to the Electoral Administration Bill.

Lady Hermon: I am sorry, but I sigh with exasperation. We are considering the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. We have just had a stand part debate on clause 13. We have gone through clause 14 and we are currently considering clause 15, but we have yet to discuss clauses 16, 17 and 18. A substantial part of part 4 is dedicated to “Donations for Political Purposes”.

David Hanson: I want to assure the hon. Lady that what she wants is what we are going to do. I do not mind being attacked in Committee for doing things that she does not want us to do, but I find myself in the strange position of being attacked for things on which I agree with her.

Lady Hermon: I am most grateful to the Minister. That was a helpful intervention for someone who claims not to be seeking controversy or a disagreement.
The Minister will know that it is exceptional, unusual and extremely welcome that Northern Ireland matters are dealt with by primary legislation. It is unusual for us to discuss a Bill that we are able to amend. The Minister will know that the vast majority of legislation for Northern Ireland is delegated legislation. I will be aggrieved if the Minister says that the Northern Ireland amendment to the Electoral Administration Bill will be made by delegated legislation. We are considering primary legislation for Northern Ireland clause by clause, with part 4 dedicated to donations for political purposes and loans, to bring Northern Ireland into line with the rest of Great Britain. I should have liked the Minister, on indicating that he intends to make the changes, to make them meaningfully, where they could be properly scrutinised in discussions on this Bill.
The Electoral Administration Bill is in the House of Lords and will come back—

Ben Wallace: The Minister mentioned his intention to incorporate into the Bill the changes in the legislation going to another place. However, it is not in his power to incorporate the legislation in the Irish Republic. This is a perfect example of a situation where he could introduce in the Bill provisions that would rule out loans that might have an effect in the north of Ireland being used under Irish legislation.

Lady Hermon: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, which moves this debate with the Minister on slightly. Perhaps the Minister would like to reflect on how he will bring Northern Ireland into line with the rest of Great Britain in the Electoral Administration Bill. I should like him to resolve the matter of whether that will be done by Order in Council.
Picking up on the hon. Gentleman’s intervention, my amendment would delete the reference whereby before a Secretary of State in the British Government can move, he has to be satisfied that
“a body of that description or category would be entitled under Irish law to donate to an Irish political party.”
That is an extraordinary phrase to appear in the Bill. I do not think that any member of the Committee would be thrilled or delighted if it referred to a body of a description or category entitled under French or American law to donate to a French or American political party. Will the Minister clarify what is intended under the clause?

Alasdair McDonnell: I am sitting here shell-shocked by the strength with which the hon. Lady has made her arguments. In the context of comments made earlier by the hon. Member for East Antrim, I can say that there is a serious misunderstanding in the Committee.
There is an implication that the funding for another political party that has chosen not to take its place in the House is somehow derived from normal political fundraising activities. The resources of 200 paid activists in the Newry and Armagh constituency, as the hon. Member for Tewkesbury suggested there were, cannot be obtained through normal political fundraising. Neither he nor I could do that. We are talking at cross-purposes. When 200 such people are put into a constituency, there is an element of paramilitary operation involved rather than normal, legitimate political operation.
I will make no apology, even if I am in a minority of one, for being absolutely opposed to any restrictions on the raising of funds from Irish citizens and corporations. I do not think there is any doubt about my political views. I come to this place because we have very much in common and to represent the people of south Belfast, but I have a different outlook from many Members of the House and of the Committee and I would like to see things done differently. That does not prevent me from participating fully here and doing what I feel is the decent thing.
The survival of the SDLP is at stake, and we make no apology for drawing some of our funding from Irish citizens who do not live in Northern Ireland. That is quite legitimate. It is legitimate for people who see themselves as British to support the Unionist parties and for the Unionist parties to identify closely with people in Britain, and we believe that we are entitled to the same right and interchange.

Ben Wallace: Does not the hon. Gentleman recognise that all of his intentions could be put into British law by the Minister in this Bill? We could help the SDLP and other parties. We do not have to rely on Irish legislation that is not within the control of the Committee, the House or this Government. We could achieve his aims without being dependent on another state.

Alasdair McDonnell: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but it is in keeping with the principle of what he wants to achieve for the Minister to make some reference to current Irish legislation, which is fairly tight—as tight as we want to achieve here. That is a good enough benchmark until the objectives are attained by whatever means we wish to use to put them in place here.
To return to my earlier point, the logical outworking of the Good Friday agreement—the Belfast agreement, as others may wish to call it—involves the recognition of people’s right to be accepted as British, Irish or both. When we finally accept that point, it will leave relationships within these islands much healthier and more positive, and we will be able to look forward into the 21st century, rather than back to the 18th or 19th.
It would be entirely wrong to suggest that Irish donations, or indeed Irish laws and Irish regulations, should be treated or viewed in the same manner as those of France, the US, Germany or any other place. That would be clear discrimination against those of us who perceive ourselves as Irish but operating in Northern Ireland.
It is very important to accept and to remind ourselves that Sinn Fein funding is not the issue. Effort is being made again and again to say that if we take action, that will curtail illegitimate funding going towards Sinn Fein. I do not wish to delay the Committee, but looking through some of the reports to the Electoral Commission, we can see that it is not just on fundraising that there are flaws. There are flaws and holes at various levels. They relate to returns, money spent and how it is spent.

Lady Hermon: Does the hon. Gentleman agree with me that it would be much better to have state funding of all political parties, including the SDLP and the Ulster Unionist party, to get away from any reliance on donations and, of course, loans?

Alasdair McDonnell: I entirely agree. State funding could not come half quick enough for me because, frankly, I have to spend far too much of my time talking to and working with people on whom I depend for donations and that distracts me from the work that I want to do. Bring on state funding quickly, please. Without delaying the Committee, I want to make the point that the measure that we are discussing is a direct threat to me and my party, and to make clear my absolute opposition to it.

Alan Reid: It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Taylor. I have concerns about the wording in clause 15 that the amendment is designed to remove. Let us look back to 2000, when the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill was originally debated in the House. The Liberal Democrats accepted that parties that operated on an all-Ireland basis should be able to receive donations from offices in the Republic of Ireland. However, we recognised that, in the absence of similar legislation in the Republic of Ireland, the inclusion of Northern Ireland in the provisions of the 2000 Act, which bans parties in Great Britain from receiving foreign donations, would create problems. We agreed to the exemption of Northern Ireland from those provisions on the express condition that the Government would seek talks urgently with the Government of the Irish Republic on introducing similar legislation in Ireland.
Obviously, what the Government of Ireland do in relation to the funding of political parties in the Irish Republic is entirely for them, but can the Minister tell the Committee whether any discussions with the Irish Government have taken place? For example, were the Irish Government willing to consider special arrangements for parties that operate both in Northern Ireland and in the Irish Republic? Can the Minister also explain who is or what bodies are allowed to donate to political parties under Irish law?
The hon. Member for North Down referred to the wording in clause 15 that would require the Secretary of State to satisfy himself
“that a body of that description or category would be entitled under Irish law to donate to an Irish political party.”
The Secretary of State needs to become an expert on Irish law as it relates to donations to political parties. That is what we have concerns about. Ideally, we should be reaching an agreement on this issue with the Government of the Irish Republic.
The Electoral Commission has also expressed concerns about these provisions. Its view is that
“it is difficult to achieve openness and transparency with such a regime.”
The commission has stated that it would like to see a clear definition of the tests of Irish citizenship, so that recipients of donations would be able to check the permissibility of donors. It also states that the legislation should clarify to what extent the commission will be able to check political parties’ compliance with the requirements on donations and whether it will be asked to give an opinion about the extent of political parties’ observance of the requirements. Will the Minister undertake to deal with all those issues, hopefully today, but certainly before consideration on Report?

Sammy Wilson: The remarks of the hon. Member for Belfast, South are perhaps the most revealing made in the debate so far. He said that the removal of the clause would affect the survival of the SDLP. He is known for over-egging the pudding sometimes, but even if we take his remark with a pinch of salt it confirms the point that I made in an intervention on the Minister that this part of the Bill is discriminatory and is aimed at one section of the Northern Ireland community and one part of the body politic.
I do not think that any Unionist party could make the same comment and claim that without clause 15 its very survival—or any part of its financial arrangements—would be adversely affected. The provisions are particularly directed at the SDLP and will benefit Sinn Fein even more. Therefore, they do not pass one of the essential tests that Northern Ireland legislation is supposed to pass—namely, that it should undergo an equality impact assessment and should not go ahead without good reason, and indeed, usually mitigation as well.
I would be interested to hear from the Minister, now that we have heard from the hon. Member for Belfast, South, what he believes the import of the provision to be and how it got through an equality impact assessment. Anyone in Northern Ireland would find it difficult to accept the Minister’s assurance that the clause would have no adverse impact on any section of the community.
The hon. Member for Belfast, South has made much of the need for the clause to be passed, to reflect his Irishness. As a Unionist, I respect the fact that he looks more towards the Irish Republic than towards the rest of the United Kingdom. However, that does not by any stretch of the imagination justify determining the rules for fundraising and political donations in Northern Ireland, which is a part of the United Kingdom, by means of laws established in another country—albeit one with which some people in Northern Ireland might have an affinity—over which neither the hon. Gentleman nor I, nor any Member of the House, has any control.
That is not acceptable—especially in the light of the record of some parties in the Republic, the laxity of the rules that apply to political donations there and the way parties are allowed to raise money. Some of the stories of sleaze emanating from the Irish Republic would make the honours-for-loans affair here look quite acceptable or even honourable.

Lembit Öpik: Yet is not that very example testimony to the importance of transparency? The Government’s recent experience underlines what happens if one gives loopholes for secrecy.

Sammy Wilson: Absolutely, and that is why I do not believe that this clause is acceptable. We would not wish the standards that apply in the Irish Republic to be translated to us. That is not a dig at what happens in another country—well, I suppose it is. It also reflects on politicians in Northern Ireland parties if it is seen that the rules are so lax that the required degree of transparency does not exist and there is secrecy that allows parties to hide behind a smokescreen when it comes to raising finance.
I do not particularly agree with the remarks of the hon. Member for Belfast, South on state funding. Although we have security problems in Northern Ireland—members of my party sometimes seek to highlight them more than members of the hon. Gentleman’s party do—that is not a reason for having a cloud of secrecy obscuring the way parties raise funds.
Referring to an earlier clause, the Minister said he wished to close the back door on foreign donations to parties in Great Britain. Yet, at the same time, he is leaving the back door open for foreign donations to parties in Northern Ireland. As a Unionist, I want the same standards to apply to fundraising for parties in Northern Ireland as apply for parties in Great Britain. I also believe that having that degree of transparency in fundraising is a safeguard for parties.
For all those reasons, the amendment is sensible. It would give safeguards to the parties in Northern Ireland and ensure the integrity of any legislation covering party political donations. It would also stop back-door funding. Some of that might well go to the Social Democratic and Labour party, but I believe that far more goes to Sinn Fein. We know from all the other financial arrangements it has had in the past, such as money laundering, that it has no qualms about how funds are raised or where money comes from. Unfortunately, Sinn Fein is now probably one of the richest parties in the United Kingdom per member. It has used that fact to good effect to inflate its political standing in Northern Ireland.
The arguments of the Minister and the hon. Member for Belfast, South do not withstand scrutiny, and the amendment ought to be agreed to.

Ben Wallace: Unlike the Minister, I have yet to hear the Government talk about the relevant Irish legislation, and I am therefore unsure whether we in the Committee or the House in general have been informed about what it means to hand over some power to Ireland to set electoral rules and laws over us—or certainly over Northern Ireland and the political parties there. I therefore made the effort to look at the Irish legislation. In fact, I looked at two Acts in particular: the Irish Electoral Act 1997 and our Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 as it pertains to the Republic of Ireland.
To do so is important, because there are clear exemptions in Ireland that we would not be happy about having in our legislation. For example, all that one needs to do to donate to a political party in the Republic of Ireland is be an Irish citizen. One does not have to live anywhere in particular. One also can donate through support groups, as they are called, or friends. The most famous are Noraid and Friends of Sinn Fein, which are highly proactive and have on many occasions been involved in raising more than funds for political parties.
We have no control over that Irish legislation—not yesterday, not today and certainly not tomorrow. As it stands, it would allow undeclared loans to be made to political parties. That is the point that I was trying to raise earlier with the Minister. He does not have control over the legislation going through the Lords at the moment; he cannot ask for an amendment that allows us to cater for Irish legislation.

Lembit Öpik: I feel it is in order to check whether the hon. Gentleman agrees that it is utterly unacceptable in any moral context for a party operating in the United Kingdom to accept loans from abroad and not declare them.

Ben Wallace: I would certainly say that that has been the thrust of legislation since I have been a Member of the House. I do not think that I would want to do that, nor is it appropriate that people who are arrested for fraud are involved in donating to political parties. If the Minister were to go to the Committee in the other place and ask it to cater specifically for Irish legislation, it would probably say, “No, you have your chance: here is your Bill, so why do you not do it?” This is a missed opportunity.
On the support groups, the Standards of Public Office Commission in Ireland will give one the details of donors because, interestingly, Ireland has transparency for its donors. I recognise that Northern Ireland is a special case and that we should allow some leeway in Northern Ireland legislation to ensure that, for now, anonymity is allowed—certainly outside the Electoral Commission.
It is clear that one party—Sinn Fein, which I have chosen specifically—has received nearly $1 million from support groups outside the Republic of Ireland since 1997. In an election year, it is usual for it to receive some $200,000 to $250,000. In addition, it has received other sums of money from citizens who live outside the Republic. That is important, as this party generates a lot of money in a way that it could not in the north of Ireland, nor could any other party.
The Minister could use the legislation to cover the aims of the SDLP or the nationalist parties or those that receive funding from the south—they can have all the exemptions they like. We could say that an Irish citizen living in the Republic of Ireland would be allowed to donate and that a party incorporated north and south of the border could donate—we could do all that—but to turn a blind eye and say, “Well, we’ll leave it up to the Dail to decide, in whichever year,” is short-sighted and certainly foolish.
We do not know what position Sinn Fein will take in elections in the next few years. One has only to listen to the Minister for Justice in the Irish Republic to realise that there are serious concerns about the position Sinn Fein might achieve in the Republic and about the influence it might have—rightly, if elected—on future legislation. If the number of exceptions and exemptions given to Sinn Fein in the north are any yardstick to go by, if they are given in the south, I fear for the future of some Northern Ireland parties, whether nationalist or republican, if, yet again, they are treated unfairly while an individual party is favoured.
As a Conservative, I do not believe in state funding. I notice that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have stated their support for it. There is one party in the United Kingdom that is state funded. Because of the exemptions to the Short rule and its wider remit in receiving state funding, the one party in the United Kingdom that receives state funding, outside the House of Commons, is Sinn Fein. That is yet another irony of the peace process. The one party that is benefiting from all the exceptions and help is not the nationalist SDLP, which plays by the rules, but the other party, which does not.
With clause 15, we therefore get rid of our responsibilities for producing good legislation to Ireland without even trying to focus on what we are trying to achieve. That is an opportunity missed and it will not help the process.
I find it fairly discourteous that the Minister and the Northern Ireland Office have not referred us to or provided us with the detail of Irish legislation, so that we know what that means—it is important. I am interested to know whether the Minister will refer to those Irish Acts and to how people can get round things, and whether he will explain how we can be sure that those Acts protect the interests of the peace process, because that is what it is all about.

David Hanson: I am grateful for the contributions from hon. Members from all parts of the Committee. I can tell the hon. Members for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Wallace) and for East Antrim straight away that we have an honest disagreement. I share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South, in that the clause states that Irish citizens and bodies should be allowed to make donations to political parties in Northern Ireland to take account of the historic nature of the special role that the Republic of Ireland has in the affairs of Northern Ireland. As my hon. Friend indicated, it is entirely consistent with the Belfast agreement—the Good Friday agreement—that relationships between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland on such matters should appertain.
I understand where hon. Members are coming. From their perspective, the Republic of Ireland is a foreign power and should be deemed as such under the Bill, as France, Germany, America, Australia or anywhere else in the world would be. However, I share my hon. Friend’s view that it is quite clear that, when implemented, the legislation will in due course ban foreign donations. We have included a difference in relation to the Republic of Ireland because there is a relationship with the Republic of Ireland, whether hon. Members like that relationship or not, with regard to shared objectives, a shared future and shared aspects of the democratic process. For the reasons that my hon. Friend outlined, in relation to the Belfast agreement, that is part of the principle.
As the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. Reid) mentioned, we have on a number of occasions discussed with the Irish Government their electoral legislation and the possibility of their changing it. We have had discussions at the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference, but I am not aware of any proposals from the Irish Government to introduce changes in their electoral legislation, although they have considered that. I have discussed the issue with my counterparts in the Irish Republic at ministerial level.
In the event of the Irish Republic bringing forward any such changes, the Bill enables powers to be given to the Secretary of State to make amendments to the scheme, which the House will have to endorse, to enable those changes to be reflected in the changes that the Committee is considering now. I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman.
Hon. Members have raised concerns about the Irish Republic’s role, but we have set down clear standards in the Bill. If an individual is an Irish citizen, they can donate to political parties in the north of Ireland for the purposes of electoral contests. We do that for the special relationship with the Republic of Ireland, for the historic nature of that relationship and in accordance with the Belfast agreement.

Lady Hermon: Would the Minister care to comment on the fact that, as he indicated, the issue has been discussed on several occasions with his counterparts in the Irish Government? Can he confirm the transparency of the current situation, as regards donations to Irish political parties, including Sinn Fein, in the Republic of Ireland?

David Hanson: In the discussions with the Irish Government, I have shared, as a matter of course, information regarding the intentions of the British Government in relation to the electoral changes that we are making in the north of Ireland. At BIIGCs, we have shared with them the details of the legislation that, potentially, will come before the House, as one would expect. We feel that it is important to do so on matters that affect the island of Ireland. I have shared with them our intentions and I understand that the Irish Government have looked at the potential for changes in their legislation. At present, there are no proposals from the Irish Government, but they are keeping the matter under review. In due course, they will discuss with the British Government our perspective on their electoral policy and legislation.
This boils down to an honest disagreement between me, my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South and other members of the Committee, and Opposition Members and Members from the Northern Ireland Unionist parties who have spoken in the debate. We have banned foreign donations and will continue to do so, but it will be a matter of special interest that the Republic of Ireland still has a role and responsibility, given the historical agreements made in Belfast on Good Friday and the historical nature of the relationship between the Republic and the north.

Alan Reid: There is common ground with the Minister in that we agree that Irish citizens should be able to donate to parties operating in Northern Ireland, and also that there should be a ban on foreign donations, but it concerns me that the measure is such that it may permit a foreigner to donate money to an Irish political party and that money may then be spent in Northern Ireland. Can he clarify the situation regarding foreign donations—that is, from people who are neither British nor Irish—to an Irish political party, with the money ending up being spent in Northern Ireland?

David Hanson: Again, at the moment, the measure is framed so as to ensure that Irish citizens can donate to Northern Ireland political parties. We have banned foreign donations; we accept in the legislation that Irish citizens can donate to parties in the north, for historical reasons. I hope there is agreement with the Liberal Democrats. I say to the hon. Member for East Antrim that it may benefit Sinn Fein or the SDLP, but is he telling me that there is no single person in the population of the Republic of Ireland who may wish to donate to his party, the party of the hon. Member for North Down or the Alliance party in Northern Ireland? I cannot rule that out. It is perfectly legitimate for an individual resident—let us say someone in a border area of Northern Ireland, or an Irish citizen who believes in the Union—to donate to the party represented by the hon. Member for East Antrim for those reasons. There is no reason why that cannot be done.

Ben Wallace: Perhaps if I put a scenario to the Minister he may understand. He talked about an Irish citizen, but proposed new section 71B(2) refers to
“a body of that description or category would be entitled under Irish law to donate to an Irish political party.”
The scenario works in one sense if we are talking about the nationalist party. What if a Unionist party chose to register a body incorporate, which is in the Irish legislation, in the south of Ireland and a foreign donor—perhaps a British citizen living in the United States or a Saudi Arabian donor or whoever we like—donated to an Ulster Unionist party based in the south, which passed that donation, through the Irish legislation, to Northern Irish politics, which would be perfectly admissible? The problem is that anybody can take advantage of the Irish law to get foreign donations into the system.

David Hanson: The hon. Gentleman will know that that could be an issue that might need to be examined. The position of the legislation is clear: we ban foreign donations to British political parties operating in Great Britain and the United Kingdom as a whole, including Northern Ireland. Irish citizens are potentially able to donate to parties operating in Northern Ireland because of the historical nature of the position between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. I would not expect there to be any situation whereby under Irish law and British law foreign individuals could subvert British Government legislation to secure donations to British political parties operating in Great Britain and/or in Northern Ireland.

Ben Wallace: It is not subverting Irish law; Irish law allows overseas donations. They can come from either an Irish citizen overseas or a support group of an Irish-based political party overseas. It is not a matter of saying that we can just let Irish citizens donate. No, we cannot do anything. We do what the Irish say because that is in the second part of the legislation. It allows overseas donations into Ireland, so it allows overseas donations via that route into the United Kingdom Northern Ireland political environment.

David Hanson: Parties that operate in the Republic of Ireland and in Northern Ireland are separate legal entities. Like individuals, they will be party to British law. Irish citizens can donate Irish-based resources and Irish-based finance from Irish citizens to political parties in the north, but that precludes donations from overseas individuals who are not Irish citizens. The position relates to the fact that Irish citizens, but not citizens of other nations, can support political parties in the north.

Lembit Öpik: The discussion reminds me of what happened on the Floor of the House: the longer the Minister spoke, the more agitated the Opposition became. I shall explain why. Does he not see that there is nothing theoretically to prevent the Labour party from setting up something in the south of Ireland and getting foreign donations into that part of the corporate organisation, transferring the money to the north and bringing it into the rest of the United Kingdom?
The Minister must accept that he is vulnerable because of the recent experience that showed that political parties will do anything to get round the conditions. What guarantee do we have that the legislation will not fail to achieve standardisation and elimination of foreign donations?

David Hanson: The simple, straightforward reason that United Kingdom law bans foreign donations, with the exception of Irish donations from Irish individuals. That resource cannot be laundered through an Irish individual to a British political party or to a party operating in the United Kingdom. It is about individuals who are resident and Irish citizens being able to donate on the island of Ireland to support political parties in the north. There is an honest disagreement in Committee about the Bill and the role of Irish citizens in supporting parties in the north.

Sammy Wilson: The Minister emphasised proposed new section 71B(1)(a) and the role of the Irish citizen. Will he comment on proposed new section 71B(1)(b), which refers to
“a body which is of a prescribed description or category and in relation to which any prescribed conditions are met.”?
Does that not cover the point made by the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre that a party in Northern Ireland could set up a body in the Irish Republic and receive donations from a foreign donor through that body into Northern Ireland?

David Hanson: No, it does not. There is an honest disagreement between the hon. Gentleman and me on such matters. I believe that the situation ensures that Northern Ireland political parties and GB political parties are separate legal entities from those in the Republic of Ireland. Under the Bill, an individual who is an Irish citizen and involved in the Republic of Ireland can donate political party resources to parties operating in the north, as indeed, under Irish law, can bodies. However, the two are separate entities and United Kingdom law on foreign donations will apply to that, with the exception of Irish-based citizens and bodies. From my perspective, that means that money cannot be laundered through the Irish Government and Irish political parties or individuals to support British political parties or Northern Ireland political parties, because that would be illegal under United Kingdom legislation.

Ben Wallace: The Minister is generous in giving way. The disagreement is about a technical, legal position that is either right or wrong. It is not a disagreement about whether we should or should not accept the provision. It is not illegal to donate to a Northern Ireland party if the body undertaking the donation is either an Irish citizen or a body under the rules of Irish electoral legislation. It is therefore not illegal for a body in the south to give money to a political party in the north, even if the money that the body is donating comes from abroad. That is a fact, not an angle of disagreement. This concerns the reading of the legislation.
If the Minister tabled an amendment to remove the provision on bodies donating and said that that had to be done by an Irish citizen, that would go some way to alleviate the problem. He could—

David Taylor: Order. The hon. Gentleman’s interventions are getting longer and longer.

David Hanson: There is an honest disagreement between us. In my view the matters relating to this are tight in the sense that we have supported the Irish Government’s definition of Irish citizens and their definition of donations to political parties. We do so because we wish the Republic of Ireland to be able, as part of the Belfast agreement, to support Northern Ireland parties should they so wish. It is meant to be ring-fenced around the Republic of Ireland. I believe that that is the effect of the Bill. I believe that hon. Members have a fundamental disagreement with the citizens and bodies of the Republic of Ireland donating to parties in the north of Ireland. That is what motivates them in Committee. That is why I will ask my hon. Friends to support the clause as drafted and to reject the amendments.

Lady Hermon: I have listened patiently to the Minister and to remarks that have been made by other hon. Members. I was particularly struck by the comments of the hon. Member for Belfast, South. If I could briefly put on my Northern Ireland Affairs Committee hat, I should tell the Minister that in our first foreign overseas foray we visited Dublin. It was part of our inquiry into organised crime and the hon. Member for East Antrim was also there—[Interruption.] I beg his pardon. He was not present on that occasion.
We were particularly struck by the witnesses’ concern about the Northern bank robbery and how it affected the way that Sinn Fein’s operation in the Republic was perceived. Until the recent robbery in the south of England, it was the largest bank robbery in British history: £26.5 million or thereabouts was stolen just before Christmas 2004. The Police Service of Northern Ireland believes that a substantial amount of that horde of cash was taken to the Republic of Ireland and some notes are believed to have been traced.
It was very notable that witnesses in the Irish Republic did not refer to the murder of Robert McCartney by the provisional IRA or those connected with the provisional IRA in Belfast. For them the most undermining event that had taken place in Northern Ireland had been the bank robbery. I find it unbelievable and I am offended that the Minister chose to rely upon the Belfast agreement, an agreement which I supported, as a defence. I would be amazed if he could turn to a specific phrase or clause that entitled the Irish Government to support Irish parties in “the north”—that was the unfortunate phrase he used: it is Northern Ireland and it is part of the United Kingdom—if they so wished. That is not my recollection of the agreement for which I voted. I should be delighted if the Minister could bring in a copy of the agreement this afternoon and point out that phrase.
Given the disquiet felt by very senior members of the Garda about how the political system in the Republic of Ireland can be wholly undermined by one party—Sinn Fein, connected with the IRA—by simply buying influence through a bank robbery, I refuse to give my consent to this clause.

Lembit Öpik: Does the hon. Lady agree that what we have seen once again is a Minister who is doing his best to defend a piece of legislation that clearly has a flaw in it? I do not blame the draftsmen for this because I believe that the Government want to keep this loophole. Would she agree that we effectively have here a piece of legislation with such a large loophole that it will not do anything to assist the law-abiding parties who obey the principle and spirit of the law, but will give an open gate to any party that wants to continue with foreign donations to do it through the back door?

Lady Hermon: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. Of course, I agree.
It is written in the Bill that there will be an exemption for Irish citizens. The Minister has confirmed that an Irish citizen could be in the Republic of Ireland and make a donation of whatever size. There will be no limit on the size of a donation, and no suggestion of any criteria that would be imposed. I cannot in conscience accept that Sinn Fein can not only distort the political system and undermine it in the Republic of Ireland, but that I should ask them, invite them and encourage them to do so in Northern Ireland, the part of the United Kingdom I love so well. I cannot and will not do it. I shall not withdraw the amendment, and want to press it to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 16.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Lembit Öpik: I have just one thing to say: I do not want to rehearse the debate again, but the Minister is obviously so confused that he thinks that the Liberal Democrats are supporting the Government in opposing the amendment. When he looks at the record, he will see that the previous debate covered an amendment that was pretty much identical to the one that we just supported. That is a concern about the clause, and I think that the Minister is now confused about its intent.

David Hanson: I am only making the point on clause stand part. The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute spoke in the last debate in favour of Irish citizens donating to Northern Ireland parties, and then he and his hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire voted against the same thing in support of the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for North Down. As ever, the Liberal Democrats have faced both ways at the same time.

Alan Reid: My concern is that the Bill would allow Irish bodies to give money and those bodies could, frankly, be money laundering. I am not opposed to donations from Irish citizens, but my concern about the wording of the clause is the reference to other bodies.

David Hanson: The only money in this clause stand part debate is a sixpence, because the hon. Gentleman has just turned on one.

Ben Wallace: In speaking to the question that the clause stand part, I would urge the Minister to come back with some details about the Irish legislation that has been mentioned. I also want to point out that this is not about some hidden agenda to stop that, and the Minister’s accusation was rather insulting. We should do what is right and what is within the power of this Government and Parliament, without relying on the Irish Government. We could give even more benefit, if we wanted, to the parties of the nationalist persuasion, because it is in our power. To accuse us of trying to undermine things is disingenuous.

Lembit Öpik: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is disingenuous of the Minister to say that he simply cannot see the difference between having sensible legislation that achieves what we want and ignoring the loopholes? All we are asking is that the Government have a sensible conversation with the Government in Dublin to ensure that everything fits together. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is clearly the Minister who is panicking?

Ben Wallace: The Government are certainly on the back foot at the very least. As the hon. Gentleman suggested, we are asking only whether we can do something in British law to close down overseas donations via bodies in Ireland. It seems likely that the Minister was not aware that the issue arose in the Bill until we mentioned it. I would be interested to know whether he or any of his officials have the Irish legislation beside them, because he has been challenged to mention bits of it, but nothing has come back. The Government have clearly rushed things through, trying to win hearts and minds in Sinn Fein, and the losers will be the other parties, which play by the rules. All we are trying to do is introduce British legislation to ensure that a loophole that is not within our control is not exploited. If the Minister cannot see that, the issue will rise to the surface in three or four years’ time and he will have only himself to blame.

Question put, that the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

The Committee divided: Ayes 16, Noes 6.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 15, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 17

Modifications during prescribed period

Lembit Öpik: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 12, line 40, leave out from beginning to end of line 8 on page 13.

David Taylor: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 28, in page 12, line 40, leave out subsection (3).

Lembit Öpik: We will probably speed up again now, and there will probably be greater consensus than there was on clause 15.
Amendment No. 3, which is in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute, is designed to meet a specific concern. As we said, we are disappointed by part 4. Under clause 14, Northern Ireland political parties will have to disclose donation returns on a confidential basis, but that will still not achieve the full transparency that we would all like. Under the Bill, full disclosure will not occur until 2010; indeed, the Government might decide to muck about with the provisions and postpone it even further. The more I hear in Committee, the more likely I think it is that they want to give themselves wriggle room to string the loopholes out even further.
That is why we are particularly concerned that subsection (3) gives the Secretary of State the ability to delay full disclosure by extending the prescribed period, during which parties need disclose their donations only to the Electoral Commission. Ideally, we want the system to be as close as possible to the one that operates in the rest of the United Kingdom. We want openness and transparency to be achieved as soon as possible.

It being One o’clock, The Chairmanadjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned till this day at Four o’clock.